AUTH/1849/6/06: Media/Director v AstraZeneca — disclosure of patient group involvement (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1849/6/06
Parties	Media/Director v AstraZeneca
Issue	Disclosure of patient group involvement / funding transparency
Source of complaint	Financial Times article treated as a complaint under established practice
Complaint received	20 June 2006
Case completed	22 August 2006
Applicable Code year	2006
Clause(s) considered	Clause 20.3
Panel decision	No breach
Appeal	No appeal
Notable timing mentioned	Transitional provisions expired 1 May 2006; AstraZeneca’s patient group list went live 20 June 2006; first transparency agreement signed 23 February 2006; 18 transparency agreements signed as at 3 July 2006
Publication	November 2006 Code of Practice Review

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A Financial Times article (20 June 2006) alleged two pharma companies (including AstraZeneca) were delaying disclosure of patient group funding for up to 18 months after the new Code requirement.
The criticism was treated as a complaint under the Code (established practice).
The Authority asked AstraZeneca to respond in relation to Clause 20.3 and its supplementary information (patient organisation transparency).
AstraZeneca said it had been working since late 2005 to comply with the 2006 Code and was developing a website disclosure solution (original planned release 1 August).
AstraZeneca’s patient group list went live on 20 June 2006 (in response to the article and consultation with the Authority).
AstraZeneca described controls including: no payments to UK patient groups until a transparency agreement was signed (first signed 23 February 2006); a sponsorship policy; and multi-signatory/panel review for projects over £5,000.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel interpreted the supplementary information to Clause 20.3 as allowing disclosure either on a website or in an annual report (alternative methods).
The Panel considered AstraZeneca’s actions were not unacceptable.
No breach of Clause 20.3 was ruled.
The Panel nevertheless emphasized companies must comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Code and should be able to provide up-to-date information on request, even if publishing retrospectively in an annual report.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access